This specification provides guidelines for designing web content authoring
tools that are both (1) more accessible for authors with disabilities and (2) designed to enable,
support, and promote the production of accessible web content by all authors.

The "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" (ATAG 2.0)
is part of a series of accessibility guidelines published by the
W3CWeb
Accessibility Initiative (WAI).

Editor's Draft of ATAG 2.0

This document is the internal working draft used by the AUWG and is updated continuously and without notice. This document has no formal standing within W3C. Please consult the group's home page and the W3C technical reports index for information about the latest publications by this group.

May be Superseded

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.

Web Accessibility Initiative

No Endorsement

Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

This is a Working Draft of the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) version
2.0. This document includes recommendations for assisting authoring tool developers to make the authoring tools that they develop more accessible to people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, motor difficulties, speech difficulties, and others.

Accessibility, from an authoring tool perspective, includes addressing the needs of two (potentially overlapping) user groups with disabilities:

Notes:

The term "authoring tools" has a specific definition in ATAG 2.0. The definition, which includes several normative notes, appears in the Glossary.

ATAG 2.0 recommends that authoring tools be capable of producing web content that conforms with WCAG 2.0. However, WCAG 2.0 notes that even web content that conforms to the highest level of WCAG 2.0 (i.e., Level AAA) may not be "accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas". Development of authoring tools that address more specialized needs is encouraged, but is beyond the scope of this document.

ATAG 2.0 does not include standard usability recommendations, except where they have a significantly greater impact on people
with disabilities than on other people.

Authoring tools are just one aspect of web accessibility. For an overview of the different components of accessibility and how they work together see:

ATAG 2.0 Layers of Guidance

The individuals and organizations that may use ATAG 2.0 vary widely and include authoring tool developers, authoring tool users (authors), authoring tool purchasers, and policy makers. In order to meet the varying needs of this audience, several layers of guidance are provided including two parts, overall principles, general guidelines, testable success criteria and an Implementing ATAG 2.0 document.

Principles - Each of the two parts have principles that provide the high-level view of what accessible authoring tools entail.

Guidelines - Under the principles are guidelines. The guidelines provide the basic goals that authoring tool developers should work toward in order to make authoring tools more accessible to authors and web contentend
users with different disabilities. The guidelines are not testable, but provide the framework and overall objectives to help authoring tool developers understand the success criteria. Each guideline includes a brief rationale for why the guideline was included.

Success Criteria - For each guideline, testable success criteria are provided to allow ATAG 2.0 to be used where requirements and conformance testing are necessary such as in design specification, purchasing, regulation, and contractual agreements. In order to meet the needs of different groups and different situations, multiple levels of full and partial conformance are defined. See Levels of Conformance.

Implementing ATAG 2.0 document - The Implementing ATAG 2.0 document provides additional non-normative information for each success criterion, including a description of the intent of the success criterion, examples and links to related resource.

All of these layers of guidance (parts, principles, guidelines, success criteria, and the Implementing ATAG 2.0 document) work together to provide guidance on how to make authoring tools more accessible. Authoring tool developers are encouraged to view and apply all layers that they are able to.

Understanding Levels of Conformance

In order to ensure that the process of using ATAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.0 together in the development of authoring tools is as simple as possible, ATAG 2.0 shares WCAG 2.0's three level conformance model: Level A (lowest), AA (middle), AAA (highest).

As with WCAG 2.0, there are a number of conditions that must be met for a success criterion to be included in ATAG 2.0. These include:

All success criteria must:

present authoring tool user interface-related accessibility issues (in Part A). In other words, the access issue must cause a proportionately greater problem for authors with disabilities than it causes authors without disabilities and must be specific to authoring tool software, as opposed to software in general, or

present accessible web content production issues (in Part B). In other words, the issue must be specific to the production of accessible web content by authoring tools, as opposed to the production of web content in general.

All success criteria must also be testable. This is important since otherwise it would not be possible to determine whether an authoring tool met or failed to meet the success criteria. The success criteria can be tested by a combination of machine and human evaluation as long as it is possible to determine whether a success criterion has been satisfied with a high level of confidence.

The success criteria were assigned to one of the three levels of conformance by the working group after taking into consideration a wide range of interacting issues. Some of the common factors evaluated when setting the level in Part A included:

whether the success criterion is essential (in other words, if the success criterion is not met, then even the assistive
technology cannot make content accessible)

whether it is possible to satisfy the success criterion for all types of authoring tools that the success criteria would apply to (e.g., text editors, WYSIWYG editors, content management systems, etc.)

whether the success criterion would impose limits on the "look-and-feel" and/or function of authoring tools. (limits on function, presentation, freedom of expression, design or aesthetic that the success criteria might place on developers)

whether there are no workarounds for authors if the success criteria is not met

Some of the common factors evaluated when setting the level in Part B included:

whether the success criterion is essential (in other words, if the success criterion is not met, then even authors with a high degree of accessibility expertise would be unlikely to produce accessible web content using an authoring tool)

whether it is possible to satisfy the success criterion for the production of all web content technologiesthat the success criteria would apply to.

whether the success criterion requires features that would reasonably be used by authors.

whether the success criterion would impose limits on the "look-and-feel" and/or function of authoring tools. (limits on function, presentation, freedom of expression, design or aesthetic that the success criteria might place on developers)

Integration of Accessibility Features

When implementing ATAG 2.0, it is recommended that authoring tool developers closely integrate features that support accessible authoring with the "look-and-feel" of other features of the authoring tool. Close integration has the potential to:

Features for meeting Part A must be accessible: The Part
A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface, including any features added to meet the success criteria in Part A (e.g., documentation, search functions, etc.). The only exemption is for preview features,
as long as they meet Guideline A.3.7. Previews are treated differently than editing views because all authors, including those with disabilities, benefit when preview features accurately reflect the actual functionality of user
agents.

A.3.1.2 No Content Keyboard Traps:Keyboard traps are prevented as follows: (Level A) [Implementing A.3.1.2](a) In the authoring tool user interface: If keyboard focus can be moved to a component using the keyboard, then focus can be moved away from that component using standard keyboard navigation commands (e.g., TAB key); and (b) In editing views that render content: If an editing viewrendersweb content (e.g., WYSIWYG view), then a documented keyboard command is provided that will always restore keyboard focus to a known location (e.g., the menus).

Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing, operating the mouse, or processing information can be prevented from using systems with short time limits or requiring a fast reaction speed, such as clicking on a moving target.

A.3.2.2 Timing Adjustable: If a time limit is set by the authoring tool, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A) [Implementing A.3.2.2](a) Turn off: The author(s) are allowed to turn off the time limit before encountering it; or(b) Adjust: The author(s) are allowed to adjust the time limit before encountering it over a wide range that is at least ten times the length of the default setting; or(c) Extend: The author(s) are warned before time expires and given at least 20 seconds to extend the time limit with a simple action (e.g., "press the space bar"), and the author(s) are allowed to extend the time limit at least ten times; or(d) Real-time Exception: The time limit is a required part of a real-time event (e.g., a collaborative authoring system), and no alternative to the time limit is possible; or(e) Essential Exception: The time limit is essential and extending it would invalidate the activity; or(f) 20 Hour Exception: The time limit is longer than 20 hours.

Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit when authoring tools make use of the structure present in web content to simplify the tasks of navigation and editing the content.

Rationale: Some authors who have difficulty typing or operating the mouse benefit from the ability to use text search to navigate to arbitrary points within the web content being authored.

A.3.5.1 Text Search: The author(s) can perform text searches of web content as follows: (Level AA) [Implementing A.3.5.1](a) Search All Editable: Any information that is text and that the authoring tool can modify is searchable, including: text content, text alternatives for non-text content, metadata, markupelements and attributes; andNote: If the current editing view is not able to display the results of a search, then the authoring tool may provide a mechanism to switch to a different editing view to display the results.(b) Bi-Directional: The search can be made forwards or backwards; and(c) Case Sensitive: The search can be in both case sensitive and case insensitive modes.

A.3.7.2 Preview: If a preview is provided, then at least one of the following is true: (Level A) [Implementing A.3.7.2](a) Third-Party User Agent: The preview makes use of an existing third-party user agent; or (b) UAAG (Level A): The preview conforms to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Level A [UAAG].

A.4.2.1 Document Accessibility Features: All features that are specifically required to meet Part A of this document (e.g. keyboard shortcuts, text search, etc.) are documented. (Level A) [Implementing A.4.2.1]

Authoring systems: As per the ATAG 2.0 definition of authoring tool, several software tools (identified in the conformance claim) can be used in conjunction to meet the requirements of Part B. (e.g., an authoring tool could make use of a third-party software accessibility checking and repair tool).

Features for meeting Part B must be accessible: The Part
A success criteria apply to the entire authoring tool user interface, including any features added to meet the success criteria in Part B (e.g., checking tools, repair tools, tutorials, documentation, etc.).

PRINCIPLE B.1: Production of accessible content must be enabled

Guideline B.1.1: Support web content technologies that enable the creation of content that is accessible.
[Implementing B.1.1]

B.2.1.2 Set Accessible Properties: Mechanisms that set the properties of web content (e.g., attribute values, etc.) also include the ability to set the accessibility-related properties. (Level A) [Implementing B.2.1.2]

B.2.5.6 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If the author(s) are provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than templates (e.g., clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes), then both of the following are true: (Level AA) [Implementing B.2.5.6](a) Indicate: The selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the pre-authored content (if known); and (b) Prominence: Any accessible options are at least as prominent as other pre-authored content options.

B.2.5.8 Pre-Authored Content in Repository: If the authoring tool provides a repository of pre-authored content, then each of the content objects has a recorded accessibility status. (Level AAA) [Implementing B.2.5.8]

PRINCIPLE B.3: Accessibility solutions must be promoted and integrated

Rationale: When authors are learning a new authoring tool, they may find and learn to use the first authoring action they encounter that achieves their intended outcome. Since they may be unaware of the issue of accessibility, it is preferable that accessible web content be an additional unintended outcome, rather than inaccessible content.

Note on "accessibility-supported ways of using technologies":

Part of conformance to WCAG 2.0 is the requirement that "only accessibility-supported ways of using technologies are relied upon to satisfy the [WCAG 2.0] success criteria. Any information or functionality that is provided in a way that is not accessibility supported is also available in a way that is accessibility supported." In broad terms, WCAG 2.0 considers a web content technology to be accessibility supported when (1) the way that the web content technology is used is supported by users' assistive
technology and (2) the web content technology has accessibility-supported user
agents that are available to end users.

This concept is not easily extended to authoring tools because many authoring tools can be installed and used in a variety of environments with differing availabilities for assistive
technologies and user
agents (e.g., private intranets versus public websites, monolingual sites versus multilingual sites, etc.). Therefore:

For the purposes of ATAG 2.0 conformance, the accessibility-supported requirement is waived.

Once an authoring tool has been installed and put into use, it is possible to assess the WCAG 2.0 conformance of the web content that the authoring tool produces, including whether the WCAG 2.0 accessibility-supported requirement is met. However, this WCAG 2.0 conformance assessment would be completely independent of the authoring tool's conformance with ATAG 2.0.

Levels of Conformance

Conformance Levels in Conformance Claims

"Full" ATAG 2.0 Conformance: This type of conformance claim is intended to be used when developers have considered the accessibility of the authoring tools from both the perspective of authors (Part
A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible) and the perspective of end users of content produced by the authoring tools (Part
B: Support the production of accessible content):

Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "A"
The authoring tool satisfies all of
the Level A success criteria.

Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "Double-A"
The authoring tool satisfies all of
the Level A and Level
AA success criteria.

Full ATAG 2.0 Conformance at Level "Triple-A"
The authoring tool satisfies all of
the success criteria.

"Partial" ATAG 2.0 Conformance: Authoring Tool User Interface: This type of conformance claim is intended to be used when developers have initially focused on the accessibility of the authoring tool to authors (Part
A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible):

Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "A":
Authoring Tool User InterfaceThe authoring tool satisfies all of the Level
A success criteria in Part A. Nothing is claimed about Part B.

Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Double-A":
Authoring Tool User InterfaceThe authoring tool satisfies all of the Level
A and Level AA success criteria in Part A. Nothing
is claimed about Part B.

"Partial" ATAG 2.0 Conformance:
Content Production:This type of conformance claim is intended to be used when developers have initially focused on the accessibility of the web content produced by the authoring tool to end users (Part
B: Support the production of accessible content):

Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "A":
Content ProductionThe authoring tool satisfies all of the Level
A success criteria in Part B. Nothing is claimed about Part A.

Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Double-A":
Content ProductionThe authoring tool satisfies all of the Level
A and Level AA success criteria in Part B. Nothing
is claimed about Part A.

Partial ATAG 2.0 Conformance Level "Triple-A":
Content ProductionThe authoring tool satisfies all of the success criteria
in Part B. Nothing is claimed about Part A.

Note: The Working Group remains committed
to the guiding principle that: "Everyone should
have the ability to create and access web content". Therefore, it is
recommended that "Partial" Conformance be claimed only as a step towards "Full" Conformance.

Conformance
Claims

If a conformance claim is made, then the conformance claim must meet the following conditions and include the following information (authoring tools can conform to ATAG 2.0 without making a claim):

Conditions on Conformance Claims

At least one version of the conformance claim must be published on the
web as a document meeting level "A" of WCAG 2.0. A suggested metadata description
for this document is "ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim".

Whenever the claimed conformance level is published (e.g., product information web site), the URI for the on-line published version of the conformance
claim must be included.

The existence of a conformance claim does not imply that the W3C has
reviewed the claim or assured its validity.

Note: If the authoring tool is a collection
of software components (e.g., a markup editor, an image editor,
and a validation tool), then information must be provided separately
for each component, although the conformance claim will treat them
as a whole. As stated above, the Claimant has sole responsibility for the conformance claim, not the developer of any of the software components.

Note 2: Web content technologies may be a combination of constituent web content technologies. For example, an image technology (e.g., PNG) might be listed together with a markup technology (e.g., HTML) since web content in the markup technology is used make web content in the image technology accessible (e.g., a PNG graph is made accessible using an HTML table).

Note 4: The list may include other web content technologies that author(s) can produce using the authoring tool, including interim formats that are not intended for publishing, but this is not required.

Optional Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim

A description of how the ATAG 2.0 success criteria were met where this may not be obvious.

"Progress Towards Conformance" Statement

Developers of authoring tools that do not yet conform fully to a particular
ATAG 2.0 conformance level are encouraged to publish a statement on progress
towards conformance. This statement would be the same as a conformance
claim except that this statement would specify an ATAG 2.0 conformance
level that is being progressed towards, rather than one already satisfied,
and report the progress on success criteria not yet met. The author of a "Progress
Towards Conformance" Statement is solely responsible for the accuracy
of their statement. Developers are encouraged to provide expected timelines
for meeting outstanding success criteria within the Statement.

Disclaimer

Neither W3C, WAI, nor AUWG take any responsibility for any aspect or result of any ATAG 2.0 conformance
claim that has not been published under the authority of the W3C, WAI, or AUWG.

Appendix A: Glossary

This appendix contains definitions for all of the significant/important/unfamiliar terms used in the normative parts of this specification, including terms used in the Conformance section. Except where indicated by "[ ]", the source of these definitions is the AUWG, developed with a goal of clarity, detail, understanding, and completeness. Every attempt has been made to find appropriate definitions for these terms from other sources before such development by the AUWG. All these terms are linked at least from their first usage in the specification. Terms that have designations of "[ ]" beside them are taken from the indicated W3C specifications. Where a definition so referenced is not suitable or adequate for the ATAG2.0, it may be modified as described herein. Please consult http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ for more information on the role of definitions in specification quality.

Any information that web content is required to contain in order to conform with a particular level of WCAG 2.0 (e.g., text alternatives for images, role and state information for widgets, relationships within complex tables, captions for audio).

Content that is used in place of other content that a person may not be able to access. Alternative content fulfills essentially the same function or purpose as the original content. Examples include text alternatives for non-text content, captions for audio, audio descriptions for video, sign language for audio, media alternatives for time-based media. See WCAG 2.0 for more information.

ASCII art[WCAG 2.0]

A picture created by a spatial arrangement of characters or glyphs (typically from the 95 printable characters defined by ASCII).

Software (or hardware), separate from the authoring tool, that provides functionality to meet the requirements of users with disabilities. Some authoring tools may also provide direct accessibility features.
Examples of assistive technologies include, but are not limited to, the following:

screen magnifiers, and other visual reading assistants, which are used by people with visual, perceptual and physical print disabilities to change text font, size, spacing, color, synchronization with speech, etc. in order improve the visual readability of rendered text and images;

screen readers, which are used by people who are blind to read textual information through synthesized speech or braille;

text-to-speech software, which is used by some people with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities to convert text into synthetic speech;

speech recognition software, which may be used by people who have some physical disabilities;

alternative keyboards, which are used by people with certain physical disabilities to simulate the keyboard (including alternate keyboards that use head pointers, single switches, sip/puff and other special input devices);

alternative pointing devices, which are used by people with certain physical disabilities to simulate mouse pointing and button activations.

A state of the authoring tool in which content can be edited by an author. The end of an authoring session is the point at which the author has no further opportunity to make changes without starting another session. The end of an authoring session may be determined by authors (e.g., closing a document, publishing) or by the authoring tool (e.g., when the authoring tool transfers editing permission to another author on a collaborative system). Note that the end of the authoring session is distinct from publishing. Automatic content generation may continue after the end of both the authoring session and initial publishing (e.g., content management system updates).

Text Editors: ATAG 2.0 is not intended to apply to simple text editors that can be used to edit source content, but that include no support for the production of any particular web content technology. In contrast, ATAG 2.0 can apply to more sophisticated source content editors that support the production of specific web content technologies (e.g., with syntax checking, markup prediction, etc.).

Whether a person has a right to modify given web content. In other words, whether they qualify as an author of the content. Some authoring tools are capable of managing authoring permissions in order to prevent unauthorized modifications.

manual
checking: where the tests are carried out by authors. This includes the case where the authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where authors must carry out the actual test procedure;

semi-automated
checking: where the tests are partially carried out by the authoring tool, but where authors' input or judgment is still required to decide or help decide the outcome of the tests; and

automated
checking: where the tests are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by the authors.

Any software programs that are used either together (e.g., base tool
and plug-in) or separately (e.g., markup editor,
image editor, and validation tool), regardless of whether there has been
any formal collaboration between the developers of the software components.

conforming alternate version[adapted from WCAG 2.0]

A version of web content that:

conforms at the designated level, and

provides all of the same information and functionality in the same human language, and

is as up to date as the non-conforming content, and

for which at least one of the following is true:

the conforming version can be reached from the non-conforming page via an accessibility-supported mechanism, or

the non-conforming version can only be reached from the conforming version, or

the non-conforming version can only be reached from a conforming page that also provides a mechanism to reach the conforming version

Note 1: In this definition, "can only be reached" means that there is some mechanism, such as a conditional redirect, that prevents a user from "reaching" (loading) the non-conforming page unless the user had just come from the conforming version.

Note 2: The alternate version does not need to be matched page for page with the original (e.g., the conforming alternate version may consist of multiple pages).

Note 3: If multiple language versions are available, then conforming alternate versions are required for each language offered.

Note 4: Alternate versions may be provided to accommodate different technology environments or user groups. Each version should be as conformant as possible. One version would need to be fully conformant in order to meet conformance requirement 1.

Note 5: The conforming alternative version does not need to reside within the scope of conformance, or even on the same web site, as long as it is as freely available as the non-conforming version.

Note 6: Alternate versions should not be confused with supplementary content, which support the original page and enhance comprehension.

Note 7: Setting user preferences within the content to produce a conforming version is an acceptable mechanism for reaching another version as long as the method used to set the preferences is accessibility supported.

content generation

The act of specifying the web
content to be rendered, played or executed by user agents.
This may refer to information perceived by end users or to instructions for the user agents. Content may be author-generated when authors are fully responsible for the web content(e.g., typing markup into a source content editing view, writing captions for audio, etc.) or automatically-generated
when programming by the
authoring tool developer is responsible for the web content (e.g., applying a template,
automatically correcting markup errors, etc.). In some cases, responsibility for content generation is shared, as when an author requests an interactive object be placed on their page (e.g., a photo album), the authoring tool applies a template, but the template requires input from the authors to be complete.

User interface
functionality that authoring tools present if they render, play or execute the
web content being edited. In ATAG 2.0 the term
covers conventional renderings (e.g., WYSIWYG), unconventional
renderings (e.g., rendering an audio file as a graphical wavefront) and partial renderings, in which some aspects of the content are rendered, played, or executed, but not others
(e.g., a frame-by-frame video editor renders the graphical, but not the timing aspects, of a video).

Features of an authoring tool that provide functionality to meet the requirements of authors with disabilities (e.g., keyboard navigation, zoom features, text-to-speech). Additional or specialized functionality may still be provided by external assistive technology.

display settings (visual): the characteristics of
the on-screen rendering of text and graphics. Examples include fonts, sizes,
colors, spacing, positioning, and contrast.

display settings (tactile): the characteristics of haptic output. Examples include the magnitude of the haptic forces and the types of vibration.

documentation

Any information that supports the use of an authoring tool. This information may be provided electronically or otherwise and includes help, manuals, installation instructions, sample work flows, tutorials, etc.

An authoring action in which content is created or modified on the
basis of continuously recording data (e.g., the location, speed, pressure,
angle) from a pointing device (e.g., mouse, stylus). Freehand drawing
does not include other uses of pointing devices, such as setting
endpoints, drag-and-drop or entering text via a handwriting recognition
system. Freehand drawing also does not include setting the properties (e.g., color, line thickness) of freehand
drawn content objects as a whole.

Language that is spoken, written or signed (through visual or tactile means ) to communicate with humans.

informative[adapted from WCAG 2.0]

For information purposes and not required for conformance.

keyboard interface

An interface used by software to obtain keystroke input. A keyboard interface can allows keystroke input even if particular devices do not contain a conventional keyboard (e.g., a touchscreen PDA can have a keyboard interface built into its operating system to support onscreen keyboards as well as external keyboards that may be connected). Keyboard-operated mouse emulators, such as MouseKeys, do not qualify as operation through a keyboard interface because these emulators use pointing device interfaces, not keyboard interfaces.

keyboard trap

A user interface situation in which the keyboard may be used to move focus to, but not from, a control or group of controls.

label[adapted from WCAG 2.0]

Text or other component with a text alternative that is presented to users to identify a component. A label is presented to all users whereas the name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology. In many (but not all) cases the name and the label are the same.

markup language

A system of text annotations (e.g., elements in HTML) and processing rules that may be used to specify the structure, presentation or semantics of content. Examples of markup languages include HTML and SVG. The markup of some content is the set of annotations that appear in the content.

name[WCAG 2.0]

Text by which software can identify a component to the user. The name may be hidden and only exposed by assistive technology, whereas a label is presented to all users. In many (but not all) cases, the label and the name are the same.

non-text
content[WCAG 2.0]

Any content that is not a sequence of characters that can be recognized or where the sequence is not expressing something in human language. This includes ASCII Art (which is a pattern of characters), emoticons, and images representing text.

normative[WCAG 2.0, UAAG 2.0]

Required for conformance. One may conform in a variety of well-defined ways to this document. Content identified as "informative" or "non-normative" is never required for conformance.

option

When an author is presented with choices. An option may be local (e.g., prompting whether to save before ending an authoring session) or global (e.g., preference settings).

A programmatic interface that is specifically engineered to provide communication between applications and assistive technologies (e.g., MSAA and UI Automation for Windows applications, AXAPI for MacOSX applications, Gnome Accessibility Toolkit API for Gnome applications, Java Access for Java applications, etc.). On some platforms, it may be conventional to enhance communication further by implementing a document object.

A heuristic measure of how likely users are to notice items (e.g., single
controls, groups of controls, text messages) in a user interface that
they are operating. Prominence is affected by numerous factors,
including: the number of navigation steps required, the reading order
position, visual properties (e.g., size, spacing, color), and even the
modality of use (e.g., mouse vs. keyboard use). For purposes of
conformance to ATAG 2.0, item A is considered to be at least as
prominent as item B if:

both items occur in the same item container (e.g., a menu for menu
items, a list for list items, a dialog box for text boxes);

if item B is emphasized, then so is item A; and

item A occurs higher in the reading order or immediately follows
item B.

manual: where the repairs are carried out by authors. This includes the case where the authors are aided by instructions or guidance provided by the authoring tool, but where authors carry out the actual repair procedure;

semi-automated: where the repairs are partially carried out by the authoring tool, but where authors' input or judgment is still required to complete the repair; and

automated: where the repairs are carried out automatically by the authoring tool without any intervention by the authors.

reversible
actions

Authoring actions that, by their nature, can be completely undone so that the system returns to the state it was
in before the action. Irreversible actions are actions that cannot be reversed and may include certain save and delete actions as well as actions made in a collaborative environment that another author has begun to work with.

role [adapted from WCAG 2.0]

Text or a number by which software can identify the function of a component within web content (e.g., a string that indicates whether an image functions as a hyperlink, command button, or check box).

A mechanism for encoding instructions to be rendered, played or executed by user agents. Web content technologies may include markup languages, data formats, or programming languages that authors may use alone or in combination to create end-user experiences that range from static web pages to multimedia presentations to dynamic web applications. Some common examples of web content technologies include HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, and JavaScript.

A content pattern that is filled in by authors or the authoring tool to produce content for end users (e.g., document templates, content management templates, presentation themes). Often templates will pre-specify at least some authoring decisions.

Information and sensory experience to be communicated to the end user by means of a user
agent, including code or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation, and interactions. In ATAG 2.0, "web content" is primarily used to refer to the output that is produced by the authoring tool. "Web content" may include web applications, including those that act as web-based authoring tools. Accessible web content is web content that conforms to a particular level of WCAG 2.0 (see Relationship to WCAG 2.0 section).
Structured web content is web content that includes machine-readable internal structure (e.g., markup elements), as opposed to unstructured
content, such as raster image formats or plain human language text.

A process that takes as input, content in one web content technology or
non-web content technology (e.g., a word processing format) and produces
as output, web content that has been restructured (linearizing tables,
splitting a document into pages), re-coded (e.g., HTML to XHTML, a word
processing format to HTML) or optimized (e.g., removing whitespace,
re-compressing images).

References to the latest version of "Authoring Tool Accessibility
Guidelines 2.0." Use the "latest version" URI to refer to
the most recently published document in the series: http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/.

In almost all cases, references (either by name or by link) should be to
a specific version of the document. W3C will make every effort to make this
document indefinitely available at its original address in its original form.
The top of this document includes the relevant catalog metadata for specific
references (including title, publication date, "this version" URI,
editors' names, and copyright information).

An XHTML 1.0 paragraph including a reference to this specific document
might be written:

For very general references to this document (where stability of content
and anchors is not required), it may be appropriate to refer to the latest
version of this document. Other sections of this document explain how to build a conformance
claim.

Appendix C: References

For the latest version of any W3C specification please consult the list of W3C Technical Reports at http://www.w3.org/TR/. Some documents listed below may have been superseded since the publication of this document.

This publication has been funded in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) under contract number ED05CO0039. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.